archana is way worse than manjusha !! - Page 2

page

Posted: 12 years ago

kool aunty i just dont know wats wrong over here

if people having first daughter go for a second child ... then it is understandable that people want their surname to be continued ... i didn even say anything over there

i just said that wat is the need of second child when u have got a first son ... gossh

Quote

Frequent Posters

koolsadhu1000

@koolsadhu1000

IF-Sizzlerz

+ 3

Posted: 12 years ago

How I read prasad's post

Children shud be allowed by seeing economical capacity

If economic capacity is limited and yet children r born ...dont beg or fleece others for money , bring them up in ur own way

Yes Saviita and Damodar too had 3 children and we have no way of knowing if they came when Damodar was earning well as an actor ...if the alcoholism followed later

But whatever the fact ...Savita Damodar did not fleece another family for their needs . They managed in their own finances . Its the Karanjkars who made another family pay for their needs and that was a shameless act . That was what prasad was trying to say and thats exactly how I read the post .

Quote

576259

Posted: 12 years ago

This content was originally posted by: Tanyaz

Well that is exactly what I have found very objectionable ... and yes , he should remove this immediately .
This very thought is extremely objectionable to me ..

what is so objectionable huh ... if u take little efforts & read everyhing ... then u will read 1 thing

i had said that if archana was a single daughter ... then manav spending on her parents was ok ... by this i wanted to mean that parents of single daughters are most & most responsible parents ... bcoz they dont give importance to waaris & spend all their money on their only daughter ... that is highly admirable & appreciable

first read properly & then comment

Quote

ChannaMereya

@ChannaMereya

IF-Stunnerz

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

Sorry did not wanted to butt in but prasad I found it objectionable too that u stated waaris and all stuff come off it u mean ppl should have second child only if first one is a daughter ah? How insane is that well I think we have come of those times now atleast and manav was not right in buying nor was he right in trusting Savita so why not hold him equally responsible for the mess

Quote

576259

Posted: 12 years ago

This content was originally posted by: dhoomdhadaka
Sorry did not wanted to butt in but prasad I found it objectionable too that u stated waaris and all stuff come off it u mean ppl should have second child only if first one is a daughter ah? How insane is that well I think we have come of those times now atleast and manav was not right in buying nor was he right in trusting Savita so why not hold him equally responsible for the mess

well to be honest i meant that only ... & nowhere it is wrong

in today's world where v r suffering from so much over pollution , population explosion , lack of jobs , single child is something which is required most !!

by more kids u r somewhere doing injustice with previous ones ... bcoz all the things of first child will get divided ... & if something happens to u then ?? ... then whole burden of sibling will come on elder child only na

Quote

Devashree

@devashree_h

Channel Moderator

+ 10

Posted: 12 years ago

This content was originally posted by: prasad1991

sulman had first SON ... a WAARIS ... who told them to give birth to 3 more children when they were financially not fit for raising them ??????

First of all Prasad, as has been pointed out the use of word SON,Waaris..that is what gives your post a totally different meaning. You did not say they had one child that should have been enough. You specifically mentioned SON in that post. And Sulman are from another era where mostly people had multiple kids.

And another thing, I would request you tone down your critique of Archana. i am not stopping you from criticizing Archana but things can be put in better ways so that they do not offend other members.

Quote

koolsadhu1000

@koolsadhu1000

IF-Sizzlerz

+ 3

Posted: 12 years ago

For just a fictional show we should not be promoting this whole idea of looking up to a baby just because it is a boy and Waaris and all that ..In m yopinion it is extremely wrong and I will say again that today I am feeling very bad that I had to read something like this in this forum ...

I know the feeling . I had felt extremely bad when the idea that a young girl who finds herself accidentally pregnant { Shravani} was automatically considered to be loose in character and comments were rampant on how she must have been sleeping around and like buttons were clicked . That too was in this forum. Probably objections were not raised then as Archana was an all time favorite . I had found those ideas an insult to woman in general . If a woman chooses to have consential sex and decides to bring forth a life in the world it need not be that she is a woman with loose morals . I think prasad worded it wrongly in sequence...he should indeed remove it coz I do not want this comparatively harmless post to be closed down for misunderstandings .

Btw I am talking in general as a member .Not about you , so do not misunderstand .

Quote

SportsFreak

@SportsFreak

Goldie

Posted: 12 years ago

This content was originally posted by: prasad1991

well to be honest i meant that only ... & nowhere it is wrong

in today's world where v r suffering from so much over pollution , population explosion , lack of jobs , single child is something which is required most !!

by more kids u r somewhere doing injustice with previous ones ... bcoz all the things of first child will get divided ... & if something happens to u then ?? ... then whole burden of sibling will come on elder child only na

oh my God, by this definition my mom should never had me since our first born was a boy and am the second born...Thank God my parents don't have such a mentality..

This is really being regressive that we should only work to have one son i can't believe there is this mentality in the 21st century

Quote

Devashree

@devashree_h

Channel Moderator

+ 10

Posted: 12 years ago

This content was originally posted by: prasad1991

well to be honest i meant that only ... & nowhere it is wrong

in today's world where v r suffering from so much over pollution , population explosion , lack of jobs , single child is something which is required most !!

by more kids u r somewhere doing injustice with previous ones ... bcoz all the things of first child will get divided ... & if something happens to u then ?? ... then whole burden of sibling will come on elder child only na

So, you absolutely dont mind population exploding if people have daughters and keep trying for a Son and then have God knows how many kids? is that what you are trying to say?

Quote

ChannaMereya

@ChannaMereya

IF-Stunnerz

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

Oh so u mean girls are a burden and guys are someone great why look if u would have told to have only one child it was fine but over population and all increase only bec of girl is it snap it out I read somewhere u and Hey all this donot suite u are degrading girls so better be careful if one child is funda then girl or boy it should be one only and u too me represent male ego sorry

Quote

1 2 3 4